Westerosi civil wars

[Bironic]

Yes there is isn't much info about the founding of Lys or Tyrosh. The islands of Lys may have been uninhabited since the Rhoynar tended to live near the Rhoyne, and Lys is to far away from where the Andals lived & sailed.

Tyrosh should have been settled by people though, it's on the stepstones between Essos and Westeros. Maybe there were some stray andals, or First Men left on the stepstones after the Hammer of the Waters, or kinsmen of the Rhoynar and the Myrmen. Tyrosh was a military colony first, so maybe the valyrians conquered the place and established an outpost there.

[aadam13]

On 10/29/2016 at 8:27 PM, Bironic said:

Arryns could have tried both Braavos and Lorath, Lorath isn't much further away from Westeros than Lys or Myr.

I don't think that the ties between Myr & Pentos and Valyria were that strong. So an attack of Stormlands(or Dorne or Riverlands) onto one of these might not have triggered an immediate Valyrian response. Although I agree that it would have been very risky and no sane king should have actually considered it, but not all kings are mentally sane.

And even after Valyria fell, there were no conquests, nor did the Targs (as sole surviving Dragonlords and thus "heirs" of Valyria) ever claim parts of Essos.

And it's true the other way around as well: None of the Free cities nor Valyria itself ever tried to take parts of Westeros (Valyria at least had a prophecy against them). The riverlands and the crownlands (or Dorne before Nymeria) were often in a state of anarchy, which enhances chances of invasion, the Vale of Arryn is easily attacked by sea as the andals proved, the Reach has not many natural protections and the North lacks a fleet to defend its coastline. An ambitious or crazy Archon/Sealord/Magister/Triarch could have very well tried to carve out parts of Westeros.

This could all be explained by Volantis's attempt to restore the Valyrian empire since Valyria fell, meaning all the other Free cities were too busy defending themselves from Volantis or scared Volantis would attack them if they weakened themselves by expanding.  

[Bironic]

36 minutes ago, aadam13 said:

This could all be explained by Volantis's attempt to restore the Valyrian empire since Valyria fell, meaning all the other Free cities were too busy defending themselves from Volantis or scared Volantis would attack them if they weakened themselves by expanding.  

But this would mean the perfect opportunity for Westerosi lords to strike against the Free Cities, while they are defending themselves against the Volantenese. But they didn't either. 

[aadam13]

23 hours ago, Bironic said:

But this would mean the perfect opportunity for Westerosi lords to strike against the Free Cities, while they are defending themselves against the Volantenese. But they didn't either. 

Remember there were 7 kingdom's at that time and only the Kingdom's on the east coast of Westeros are not able to:

• The North, too small a navy and threatened by Wildlings
• The Vale of Arryn, threatened by the Ironborn since they have ships with which they could get passed the Bloody gate and they are also threatened by the mountain clans 
• The Stormlands, threatened by the Ironborn, the Reach and Dorne  
• Dorne, too small a population to invade another country which is almost certainly more populated then them and they are also threatened by the Stormlands and the Reach

Also I ask you to remember it's difficult to create an oversea empire, in that time peroid because of supply lines to name one. Also to conquer an overseas country, you will need to take most to all your army overseas meaning previously small threats ( Wildlings, mountain clans and Dorne) become much larger.  

 

[Bironic]

Just now, aadam13 said:

Remember there were 7 kingdom's at that time and only the Kingdom's on the east coast of Westeros are not able to:

• The North, too small a navy and threatened by Wildlings
• The Vale of Arryn, threatened by the Ironborn since they have ships with which they could get passed the Bloody gate and they are also threatened by the mountain clans 
• The Stormlands, threatened by the Ironborn, the Reach and Dorne  
• Dorne, too small a population to invade another country which is almost certainly more populated then them and they are also threatened by the Stormlands and the Reach

Also I ask you to remember it's difficult to create an oversea empire, in that time peroid because of supply lines to name one. Also to conquer an overseas country, you will need to take most to all your army overseas meaning previously small threats ( Wildlings, mountain clans and Dorne) become much larger.  

 

Actually it's easier to have an oversea empire as you call it because in ancient times, even more so than today, it was way easier to transport goods and men by ship. Especially since aside from the valyrian roads in parts of essos there are no roads comparable to say the roman roads in Westeros.

Also you are forgetting the targs and their bannermen in the narrow sea. They have a navy and dragons.

Also just because you have one enemy on doesn't prevent a crazy or ambitous lord/king to attack somewhere else. Theon the hungry wolf supposedly spent his reign fighting andals, ironborn and wildlings.

The north probably wasn't so troubled by wildlings in the past since the NW had about 10000 men during aegons conquest and that was when the decline had already started. Stannis managed to defeat the wildlings with around 2000 men. The starks lack a strong navy though.

The mountain clans are a nuisance, no real danger, they have never prevented the arryns to fight against the north (in an oversea fight across the bite) or riverlands in the past. The Hoares tried to take the bloody gate, afaik they never launched a seaborne attack on the vale. I grant you that they could have done it though.

The hoares could have launched an attack since they have experience at naval warfare, the same is probably true for the stronger Kings of the Durrandons.

The fleet of the reach is probably able to sail to essos to fight, if they really want it.

And that's not exactly what my point is anyway:

IMHO there is to little interaction between Essos and Westeros. If you look at the mediterranean sea or at the history of the english channel, which are probably the "blueprints" for the narrow sea you sea way more conquests, conflicts, wars, diplomacy etc.

Just an example for this between 1066 and 1558 parts of france were controlled by english kings. We do have the opposite as well: the celts, romans, anglosaxons, vikings, normans, all successfully landed on the british isles while later on France or Spain at least tried it. Not to mention all the wars fought in the mediterranean seas, the crusades, etc.

There should have been at least a couple of (halfway succesful) attempts on both sides (essos/free cities and Westeros) to try to get their hands on at least the stepstones, the disputed lands, the crown- and riverlands, the lands in between Pentos and Braavos etc.

 

[Jaak]

For some reasons, Essos was a desert even before Century of Blood.

A shipload of runaway slaves founded a city on a coast - and somehow kept it a secret for two centuries!

Could not possibly have happened in Westeros. Nulle terre sans seigneur. Even remote villages in Westeros, like Hag´s Mire or the swampy shores where Elder Brother worked, were subject to some petty lord or landed knight. Not that there is a resident lord in every village - but villages without resident lord get visited by septons, lord´s bailiffs, like visit of  a Frey bastard to Hag´s Mire to try Chett.

If a bunch of fugitives showed up anywhere in Wessos south of Wall, the matter would promptly be reported to the local lord/landed knight, and soon to his superiors as well.

Not that fugitives might not be received in Westeros. Some lords might welcome a bunch of desperate people willing to work for a chunk of low quality land. Starks welcomed Manderlies. But not in secret.

[aadam13]

On 11/4/2016 at 11:20 PM, Bironic said:

Actually it's easier to have an oversea empire as you call it because in ancient times, even more so than today, it was way easier to transport goods and men by ship. Especially since aside from the valyrian roads in parts of essos there are no roads comparable to say the roman roads in Westeros.

Also you are forgetting the targs and their bannermen in the narrow sea. They have a navy and dragons.

Also just because you have one enemy on doesn't prevent a crazy or ambitous lord/king to attack somewhere else. Theon the hungry wolf supposedly spent his reign fighting andals, ironborn and wildlings.

The north probably wasn't so troubled by wildlings in the past since the NW had about 10000 men during aegons conquest and that was when the decline had already started. Stannis managed to defeat the wildlings with around 2000 men. The starks lack a strong navy though.

The mountain clans are a nuisance, no real danger, they have never prevented the arryns to fight against the north (in an oversea fight across the bite) or riverlands in the past. The Hoares tried to take the bloody gate, afaik they never launched a seaborne attack on the vale. I grant you that they could have done it though.

The hoares could have launched an attack since they have experience at naval warfare, the same is probably true for the stronger Kings of the Durrandons.

The fleet of the reach is probably able to sail to essos to fight, if they really want it.

And that's not exactly what my point is anyway:

IMHO there is to little interaction between Essos and Westeros. If you look at the mediterranean sea or at the history of the english channel, which are probably the "blueprints" for the narrow sea you sea way more conquests, conflicts, wars, diplomacy etc.

Just an example for this between 1066 and 1558 parts of france were controlled by english kings. We do have the opposite as well: the celts, romans, anglosaxons, vikings, normans, all successfully landed on the british isles while later on France or Spain at least tried it. Not to mention all the wars fought in the mediterranean seas, the crusades, etc.

There should have been at least a couple of (halfway succesful) attempts on both sides (essos/free cities and Westeros) to try to get their hands on at least the stepstones, the disputed lands, the crown- and riverlands, the lands in between Pentos and Braavos etc.

 

Can I point out that I agree with you that there should be a lot more Westerosi and Essosi interaction including them attack each other for land. I am just try to say why there light be an excuse for GRRM's lack of interactions between the two continents however another reason is that the intereaction between them are being saved for Fire and Blood. Also a quick aquestion do you agree with the wars I've classed as Westerosi civil wars? 

[Bironic]

On 6.11.2016 at 0:42 AM, aadam13 said:

Can I point out that I agree with you that there should be a lot more Westerosi and Essosi interaction including them attack each other for land. I am just try to say why there light be an excuse for GRRM's lack of interactions between the two continents however another reason is that the intereaction between them are being saved for Fire and Blood. Also a quick aquestion do you agree with the wars I've classed as Westerosi civil wars? 

Yes I agree with your list. But I would extend the meaning of civil war:

Quote

A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or country, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region or to change government policies. The term is a calque of the Latin bellum civile which was used to refer to the various civil wars of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC.

Excerpt taken from Wikipedia.

So IMHO the Faith Militant uprising, Prince Aegons war with Maegor, The Greyjoy Rebellions, and all the Blackfyre Rebellions qualify as civil wars. Even though I agree with you that some of these civil wars were pretty "minor" civil wars, compared to those you listed.

 

[aadam13]

On 9/26/2016 at 9:52 PM, aadam13 said:

Technically you are correct, however in the medieval times the term  civil war was used when roughly half the country is on either side (or five sides in the war of the five kings), while a rebellion was used when it was a small group of lords rebel. e.g. the Greyjoy Rebellion and the some of the Blackfyre rebellion. However the reason I believe the First and perhaps Third Blackfyre Rebellions are called rebellions is to make them seem smaller than they actually were.

However the only exception for this seems to be Robert's Rebellion, the reason for this could be:

• That Aerys II called it that to make it seem smaller
• That the name stuck since the alternative was the war of the Usurper
• GRRM wanted to make it have alliteration
• Rebellion and civil war mean the same thing in medieval Westeros while they didn't in ours

I the only other wars I could find which could perhaps count as Westerosi civil war is the war between the First men and Children of the Forest because it was two factions fighting for supremacy in Westeros however since the First men were foreigners back then I wouldn't count them and the other war could be the Andal invasion since some houses supported the Andals however the Andals were also foreigner back then so I woudn't count them.

Thank for commenting, hope I helped you remember the war you can't remember. 

This should explain why the every rebellion is not classed as civil war, as you said in the following. 

1 hour ago, Bironic said:

Yes I agree with your list. But I would extend the meaning of civil war:

Excerpt taken from Wikipedia.

So IMHO the Faith Militant uprising, Prince Aegons war with Maegor, The Greyjoy Rebellions, and all the Blackfyre Rebellions qualify as civil wars. Even though I agree with you that some of these civil wars were pretty "minor" civil wars, compared to those you listed.

 

 

[Bironic]

I've never heard of this specific definition of a civil war during medieval times. Can you back your definition up?

I'd rather use the broader definition of civil war on Wikipedia, as in the links below:

List of civil wars

Civil war

 

 

 

[aadam13]

On 11/8/2016 at 8:35 PM, Bironic said:

I've never heard of this specific definition of a civil war during medieval times. Can you back your definition up?

I'd rather use the broader definition of civil war on Wikipedia, as in the links below:

List of civil wars

Civil war

 

 

 

The problem with using civil war every time it wasn't really used for that in medieval times as shown by the evidence below ( the source is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England), by the way the word "civil war" wasn't really used until the English Civil War until then they just used the word "war" such as the War of the roses which was a civil war in medieval standards. 

List of civil wars[edit]

Rebellion of 1088 – in England and Normandy

The Anarchy (1135–54) – in England

Revolt of 1173–74 – in England, Normandy, and Anjou

First Barons' War (1215–17) – in England

Second Barons' War (1264–67) – in England

Welsh Uprising (1282) – in England and Wales

Peasants' Revolt (1381) – in England

Wars of the Roses (1455–1485) – in England and Wales; Richard III was the last English king to die in combat

Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639–1651) – in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland

First Bishops' War (1639)

Second Bishops' War (1640)

Irish Rebellion of 1641

First English Civil War (1642–46)

The Confederates' War (1642–48)

Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1644–47)

Second English Civil War (1648)

Third English Civil War (1650–51)

Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (1649)

Monmouth Rebellion (1685) – in England

Jacobite Rebellions (1689–91; 1715–16; 1719; 1745–46) – in England, Scotland and Ireland

Williamite War in Ireland (1688–91)

Battle of the Boyne (1690) – last battle between two rival claimants for the throne

[Bironic]

16 minutes ago, aadam13 said:

The problem with using civil war every time it wasn't really used for that in medieval times as shown by the evidence below ( the source is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England), by the way the word "civil war" wasn't really used until the English Civil War until then they just used the word "war" such as the War of the roses which was a civil war in medieval standards.

If I get your point right, you think we shouldn't call wars in medieval england prior to the 17th century "civil war" because the english term wasn't used back then?

 

[aadam13]

On 11/9/2016 at 11:30 PM, Bironic said:

If I get your point right, you think we shouldn't call wars in medieval england prior to the 17th century "civil war" because the english term wasn't used back then?

 

Sorry I didn't explain the my point properly, the term "civil war" was not well known at he the time until the English civil war, this is showed by the civil wars above. This is because wars were normally named by the peasants or/and lords in medieval times and most of them did not know the term "civil war" however the term civil war was used by the more intelligent lord and the scholars. 

[Bironic]

1 hour ago, aadam13 said:

Sorry I didn't explain the my point properly, the term "civil war" was not well known at he the time until the English civil war, this is showed by the civil wars above. This is because wars were normally named by the peasants or/and lords in medieval times and most of them did not know the term "civil war" however the term civil war was used by the more intelligent lord and the scholars. 

Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't call them civil wars now.

For example the term Renaissance for the time period between the 14th and 17th century only became a widespread term in the 19th century. Should we stop to call these centuries "Renaissance"? No we shouldn't, IMNSHO.

If the modern terminus civil war or Renaissance or whatever applies to a certain event in the past, we should call it that way even if the people who lived during said times didn't call it that way.

 

[aadam13]

6 hours ago, Bironic said:

Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't call them civil wars now.

For example the term Renaissance for the time period between the 14th and 17th century only became a widespread term in the 19th century. Should we stop to call these centuries "Renaissance"? No we shouldn't, IMNSHO.

If the modern terminus civil war or Renaissance or whatever applies to a certain event in the past, we should call it that way even if the people who lived during said times didn't call it that way.

 

I'm not saying don't call things civil wars ( what medieval people would call rebellions) now, I am talking Westerosi (medieval) civil wars.

[Bironic]

7 hours ago, aadam13 said:

I'm not saying don't call things civil wars ( what medieval people would call rebellions) now, I am talking Westerosi (medieval) civil wars.

Yes and I am saying that what we call civil wars now, should apply to Westerosi (medieval) wars as well. So Faith Militant uprising, Blackfyre rebellions etc. are civil wars. Even if Westerosi (medieval) people wouldn't call them that way.

[aadam13]

3 hours ago, Bironic said:

Yes and I am saying that what we call civil wars now, should apply to Westerosi (medieval) wars as well. So Faith Militant uprising, Blackfyre rebellions etc. are civil wars. Even if Westerosi (medieval) people wouldn't call them that way.

I'm very sorry for this misunderstanding since I did not explain this when I posted my topic, that I am talking about what Westerosi (medieval) would class as civil wars. 

[Bironic]

1 hour ago, aadam13 said:

I'm very sorry for this misunderstanding since I did not explain this when I posted my topic, that I am talking about what Westerosi (medieval) would class as civil wars. 

Oh okay, I didn't get that. 

But I don't even know if Westerosi have a concept or word for civil war. I mean they usually use the general terminus "war" such as in the War of the 5 Kings/war of the Usurper, or "rebellion" in Robert's Rebellion/Blackfyre Rebellions/Greyjoy Rebellion/Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion/Skagosi Rebellion/laughing storm rebellion, or Uprising such as in Faith Militant Uprising or Peake Uprising. We have also the "dance" of the dragons and the "defiance" of Duskendale.

[aadam13]

4 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Oh okay, I didn't get that. 

But I don't even know if Westerosi have a concept or word for civil war. I mean they usually use the general terminus "war" such as in the War of the 5 Kings/war of the Usurper, or "rebellion" in Robert's Rebellion/Blackfyre Rebellions/Greyjoy Rebellion/Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion/Skagosi Rebellion/laughing storm rebellion, or Uprising such as in Faith Militant Uprising or Peake Uprising. We have also the "dance" of the dragons and the "defiance" of Duskendale.

Yeah, like I said before I'm not sure if Westerosi do have the same concept of civil war as they did in medieval times, the reason I assumed they do is that the time ASOIAF is based in, is the middle ages.

[Bironic]

25 minutes ago, aadam13 said:

Yeah, like I said before I'm not sure if Westerosi do have the same concept of civil war as they did in medieval times, the reason I assumed they do is that the time ASOIAF is based in, is the middle ages.

If you look at how interchangeable they use the words "war", "rebellion", "uprising" etc. I don't think that there is a specific Westerosi definition of civil war.

I mean they use the word rebellion for regional conflicts such as in Skagosi Rebellion or Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion as well as in conflicts that engulfed almost all the 7Kingdoms such as in Robert's Rebellion or First Blackfyre Rebellion, or conflicts that were something in between such as the Greyjoy rebellion. Furthermore Robert's rebellion is named after one of the main leaders while the Blackfyre rebellions, the Greyjoy Rebellion and the Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion are named after the main houses that rebelled, the Skagosi rebellion is either named after the Island were the rebellion took place or after the people who live there. They don't use one word for a failed attempt (first blackfyre rebellion)and another for a succesful attempt (robert's rebellion). I mean they call the second Blackfyre rebellion a rebellion when we would rather call it a failed attempt to launch a civil war or a botched coup d'etat.

The Westerosi use the word uprising once in a context of a religious order and once in the context of a noble family.  And that's not even mentioning the "War of the 5 Kings", "the war of the Usurper", "the dance of Dragons" or the "the defiance of Duskendale".

There is no pattern whatsoever.